# C_2017030EN.01001801.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 October 2016 — Richard Rodriguez Serin v HOP!-Regional

(Case C-539/16)

(2017/C 030/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Richard Rodriguez Serin

Applicant:

Defendant: HOP!-Regional

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] (2) brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passengers concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] (2) brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passengers concerned?

1

2

| 2. | Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
  When passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the final destination of the passengers to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, even if the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on the disruption of the first leg of the journey and the claim has been brought against the air carrier which operated the first flight, which is not a party to the contract of carriage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:

When passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the final destination of the passengers to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, even if the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on the disruption of the first leg of the journey and the claim has been brought against the air carrier which operated the first flight, which is not a party to the contract of carriage?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

2

---